U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_ak_47_heaven&cid=540&ncid=1473

BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.

Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs — and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

more

[NekoChris]

1. Odd..

That they need them so badly. The gun shops here in KY sometimes have 30-40 AK-47 of varying origin sitting on the shelf for sale, between $200-$300 for a decent one, as low as $150 on some. All used and about 10+ years old. But still.

....I even considered buying one just to say I have an AK-47. ^_^

You'd think the military, being, ya know, THE MILITARY, would be able to supply sufficent side arms.

[slor]

28. NekoChris...quick question...

where in Kentucky can you get one? I want to buy one and that is the cheapest price I've heard yet!

[Spazito]

2. Wow, the soldiers' concerns about their own rifles...

have been around for a LONG time yet nothing is being done! Weren't those the same ones that jammed during Vietnam?

What a sad commentary when the rank and file have to use the opposition's armaments because their own is of a lesser quality.

[5thGenDemocrat]

3. I wouldn't say the M-16 is of "lower-quality," exactly

We were taught in Basic Training (Jan-Mar 1974, Fort Knox, KY) that the M-16 is a good weapon that's useless if it gets dirty. On the rifle range, we had a swell time shooting up the plastic targets -- then we took our 16s back to the barracks for their thorough, nightly cleaning.
I served in the Signal Corps (never touching an M-16 again) after basic, so I can't speak to their battlefield efficiency.
BUT, an AK will fire when wet or dirty. It isn't accurate, it fires smoky ammunition and it's heavier (by two pounds) than an M-16. It is, however, durable and dependable.
John
Who doesn't own a gun, BTW.

[Spazito]

4. thanks for the info, I know squat about guns..

as I don't own one.

[bemildred]

6. And a gunsmith in Afghanistan will make one for you

for about $125, or so I have read.

[RamboLiberal]

8. I've also read the military gave them the wrong lubricant for M16

Gave them BreakFree which is a great lubricant here but not in the sandy environment of Iraq and apparently it's attracting and holding the fine sand gumming up the weapons. Troops want Militec lubricant and are even having family members send that to them.

Here's an email from one. Note this is from company website but I saw this issue in other places.

---- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:56 AM
Subject: Militec In Iraq

Mr. Giordani,
I recently went to your company website to get additional information for a purchase of Militec and noticed numerous emails concerning problems with getting Militec into Iraq. I think you will find my situation interesting:
I am a First Sergeant in the U.S. Army Reservies deployed to Iraq. Prior to departing the U.S. I packed a one gallon container of Ed's Red gun cleaning solution. (Homemade internet recipe.) I also packed my own 9mm cleaning kit and an Otis M16 kit given to me by a friend at Impact Guns in Ogden, UT. For lubrication I packed Militec. Notice, there is no government issued cleaning gear in my equipment. Knowing the conditions we would soon be facing, since deployment I have tried to obtain Militec through military supply channels. I met with negative results. Our Government Purchase Card was turned off by the Reserves, so local or mail order was not possible. We have had to do with BreakFree since the deployment.
The BreakFree has not worked well in the dusty environment of Kuwait or Iraq. The talcum powder consistency penetrates EVERYTHING, sticks to the even the most lightly applied BreakFree and jams the weapon. The most common failure is failure to feed. My armorer was told by Direct Support told this was due to defective magazines, but that is not true. Some soldiers have been going with a dry weapon in order to temporarily avoid the problem. With sharing, I am down to my last few drops of Militec. Three days ago our government credit card was turned on and we will be placing an order for a case of Militec first thing.
Other than the obvious, why would this interest you? In my civilian job I am a Special Agent with the Department of Defense Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. I am also a FLETC trained Firearms Instructor. I have used Militec for years on my personal weapons and issue duty carry weapon. I use it on everything from antique firearms to personal Class 3 weapons. I also local purchase Militec for DCIS duty weapons and have recommended it to the other Instructors.
At home I trust my life to my weapon, a Glock 26. I find it incredible that being in a combat zone, I can not get the same protection! We crossed into Iraq at the first of April and have yet to get proper lubrication. Luckily, we have not had to fire our weapons in anger, although the shootings have been very close. Weapons maintenance is a constant chore anyway, but in Iraq it should be a daily job. With BreakFree it seems to require a complete cleaning to remove the gunk. With Militec I can basically wipe the weapon down and reapply. While performing Sergeant of the Guard duty in Balad, the SOGs consistently find weapons that are non-functional, mainly due to failure to feed. We have all followed the story of Jessica Lynch. My initial reaction was anger at poor weapons maintenance, but the reality is that everyone is in the same boat. The Combat Arms clean their weapons everyday, Combat Support and Combat Service Support generally do not.
Realize that the soldiers and NCOs in the field know what is required of their weapons. More importantly, they know what is required to maintain their weapons. BreakFree is not the right stuff.
1SG XXX
U.S. Army Reserves

http://www.militec.co.nz/warlinks1.asp

[Best_man23]

14. This makes me wonder

If the makers of BreakFree have a Dumbya/Repug party afilliation (i.e. Pioneer status)?

[votein04]

12. Yep..dirty and wet still works. The choice is simple

Pretty scary to think the USA is getting more proficient at killing with practice.

Us or them is the rule of the battlefield. Too bad Iraq is such an ambiguous battlefield.

[coralrf]

18. No No No..my man

The M16 is vastly superior to the Kali. It weighs less. Its ammunition weighs less. It has much less kick, much greater velocity and is much easier to handle. As for the weapon not working when dirty, none do. Let me ask you this: If you knew that your weapon was susceptible to hang or misfire if dirty and you were using it in combat......would it be to o much to ask that you clean the damn thing...or die? I toted an M16 for a year as a long range recon guy. I loved the thing and the VC feared it.

AKs fail when wet, dirty or damp. The large ammo used by that dinosaur is very prone to water fouling and it’s damn heavy. I used AKs for fun but never would I trade one for a 16.

These soldiers are just doing what anybody would do. The AK is different, like a Cuban cigar...a legend and they are not going to miss the chance to have a "hands on" with this famous tool of the enemy.

[happyslug]

22. Ak vs M-16 debate, which is better?

The problem when comparing these two weapons is to remember both use a rotating bolt head (different design but same concept). The Bolt head is each is one of the best every designed (Both were invented about the same time period, WWII, but by two different designers, Kalisnakov and Stoner. The dispute between the two is that Eugene Stoner wanted his AR series of Weapons (which became the M -16) to be the lightest weapon possible, while Kalisnakov wanted his AK series to be the most reliable automatic rifle possible.

Given Kalisnakov's obsession with reliability, he added weight for a heavier (and more reliable) bolt than Stoner (whose M-16's bolt is much lighter and needs the buffer spring in the stock to operate properly, something the AK does not need).

Kalisnakov also used a very reliable mechanical linkage system to operate his gas operating system as opposed to the direct gas drive of the M -16. Stoner liked the direct gas drive for its lighter weight.

The triggers of the two weapons are also different, Kalisnakov used the Trigger mechanism of the American M -1 and M -14 rifles, while Stoner developed his own trigger that was integrated into the bottom half of the receiver. This permitted more savings of weight. The AK has more room inside its mechanism than the M -16. With the AK's heavier bolt this permits dirt that does get into the Mechanism to to be pushed out of it rather than jamming the Weapon. Another indication of Kalisnakov's obession with reliability.

One last comment the best safety on ANY rifle is the AK's. Very strong, very heavy, very reliable and very nosily.

Which is Better? If you want reliability in ANY field condition, go with the AK series. If you want light weight and reasonable reliability go with the M -16. Please note I am ignoring the caliber the weapon is in. Both the AK and M -16 Mechanism have been produced in any caliber you want. The four most popular at the present time is the American 5.56x45 mm, the 7.62x51 mm NATO, and the 7.62mm x 39 and 5.45x 39mm Russian Rounds (and you can get EITHER weapon in any of these Calibers).

Of these the 7.62x51 NATO round (and the Russian 7.62x54R Round) is generally not used in today’s assault Rifles, to powerful. To have any adequate accurate fire rate, even in semi-automatic mode, you have to use something less powerful than the 7.62x51 NATO Round. Thus the 5.56, 5.45 and 7.62x39 Rounds.

The 7.62x39 round is the oldest, developed in 1939 (parallel to the German Developed of its 7.92 Kurz Round. Both seem to come out of the Joint German-Soviet Co-operations in the mid-1920s). The 7.62x39 Round was simply the reducing in the weight of the Bullet and powder to make an easier to shoot round. The 5.56 round came out of the 1950s when after experiments it was found to be as effective as something like the 7.62x 39 Round with even fatter trajectory (thus easier to train new troop in its use). The 5.45x 39 round was the Russian’s answer to the 5.56 Round. The Russian’s plan around combat ranges of 300 meters or less, while American’s plan on Combat Ranges of 400 Meters or less. If you plan for 300 meters instead of 400 meters you can use less powder and thus smaller round.

One last comment, the AK series is as accurate as the M -16 series, both can be tack drivers. The problem with most people's perception of AK as less accurate is the Ammunition for the AK. The Former Soviet Union (and today's Russia) both have a problem with "quality" in almost everything and Ammunition is no exception. The AK was design to use ammunition that would jam a M -16 (and this is the ammunition most people have fired in the AK they have operated).

A good view of how these two weapons are valued is to look at the Israeli Defense Forces. In the early 1970s the Israelis were looking to replace their old AN FAL Rifles (in 7.62x51mm NATO). They had one of their Special forces groups test out various 5.56mm Weapons AND the AK. They came back that they liked the AK better do to its reliability in the desert conditions. The Israelis than come out with their Galil Assault Rifles which is a Copy of the AK except machined (Most AK’s are stamped out using high pressure stamping machine just like a automobile body parts) and uses American M -16 magazines.

Since that time the US has provided M -16 Rifles to the Israelis and thus the Israeli Infantry and Special Forces have the option of the Galil or the M -16. Almost all of the Infantry and Special Forces have adopted the M -16 do to its lighter weight. On the other hand the Tank and Artillery units still use the Galil for its greater tolerance to dust (the Tanks and Self Propelled Artillery toss up a lot of dirt, and thus these two types of units like the Galil).

My big question has been why has the Israeli Infantry opts for the M -16 over the Galil? The biggest reason seems to be that the Israeli Infantry is NOT planning on any long term fighting in dusty terrain i.e. No actual wars with its neighbors but just internal security disputes i.e. the West Bank. In such urban combat the advantages of the AK is minimized while the light weight of the M -16 becomes a huge advantage (In Beruit in during the Lebanon Civil War the M -16 was perferred over the AK for this reason).

On the other hand Israeli Armor is still planning to fight in desert conditions thus its preference for the Galil (Israel’s AK clone). Also the Israeli Infantry is planning to fight any conventional War from inside either M -113 Armored Personal Carriers (APC) or M -2 Bradley Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicles (MICV). Both are completely enclosed (Or more accurately can be enclosed when I rode a M -106, a M -113 designed to haul a 4.2 Inch Mortar, in the National Guard we almost always traveled with the top open, but it seems more modern uses of both the APC and MICV has been to keep them fully enclosed).

If the Israeli Defence Force plan to fight any Conventional War in closed in vehicles, such Infantry is also closed off from most dirt and dust (unlike their fathers in the 1960s and early 1970s who fought in open top American M -2 Half-Tracks from WWII).

Israeli Special forces also are reported to like the light weight of the M -16 over the AK. The Special Forces also have a lot of weight to carry around and thus the lighter the weapon the better. Special Forces prepare to fight but most special forces operations is to locate the enemy NOT to destroy the Enemy (that will be done by the Infantry, Artillery, Air Force etc). Thus Special Forces do not need to plan for extended use of their weapons in combat (Where the AK advantages lay) but only for emergency use and than for just the time needed to get out of any trouble. The M -16's light weight is thus an advantage to Special Forces also.

Now another factor is the Israeli’s use of the M -16 over its own Galil, might be a quin pro quo with the US. The US provides them with M -16s while the Galil is sold to various Latin American countries where its reliability in jungle conditions (remember the Galil is an AK clone) is well liked. Not only is the Galil the preferred Weapon of the Columbian and other Latin American Countries, it is the preferred weapon of the Guerillas fighting in those countries. Preferred over both the AK and the M -16 (the reason seems to be a preference for the 5.56mm American M -16 round over the AK’s 7.62mm Round. The Russian 5.45mm Round seems also to be popular in Asia but has not traveled to Latin America. Russia did not start to export weapons in that caliber till the 1990s, in the 1980s their were being reserved for the Soviet Army. Thus in Latin America it is easier to get either 5.56 or 6.62x39mm Rounds than any other combat round).

These seem to be the main differences between these two weapons, either one most soldiers would prefer over any other rifle in the world today.

[Turley]

27. AK not accurate?

AK's are extremely accurate in capable hands. They will also malfunction when wet or dirty, just like all weapons.

[demdave]

5. Where is t written that the M16 is of lesser quality.

The article is about an armor battalion. " Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said.


You also might want to inform your self about what you are talking about. Try here http://mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m16.html#DEVEL.

Or do your own google. The problem that you refered to was fixed over 40 years ago.

[NNN0LHI]

9. This is not the first case of US rifles jamming in Iraq that I have read

Doesn't sound to me like they have quite ironed out all of the bugs just yet? Don

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030710211509.sp5vo8ey.html

Report blames wrong turns, jammed weapons for capture of US heroine Lynch

A US army report blamed jammed weapons, wrong turns, fatigue and the harsh environment for a March 23 ambush in Iraq in which 11 soldiers died and six, including Private Jessica Lynch, were captured.

<snip>Some of the soldiers reported their M-16 rifles jammed when they tried to return fire, which "may have resulted from inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment," the report said.

more

[Spazito]

11. Hmmm, can one not get the impression that the AK47 is doing a better..

job than the one supplied to US troops if they are preferring to use the AK47?

Did the M16 not jam during the Vietnam war?

[happyslug]

23. Yes, see my previous post also

The problem with the M -16 was three fold, first the M —16 when first used in Vietnam did not have chromed chambers. The M -1, M -14, FN-FAL (used by Canada and other countries) and even the AK series all had chrome chambers. Why? Chrome chambers when hot will retain less powder residue than non chrome chambers. Less residue less jamming. This was the main reason for the jamming during Vietnam, had to be fixed as the troops were using the weapon. A bad situation since when the M -16 was adopted production of the M -14 had stopped. Given that the US had to have troops not only in Vietnam but Europe the only weapons to replace the M -16 (if they were withdrawn to be hard chromed) would have been WWII era M -1 rifles, the US had no other weapon it could use (The M -14s were in Europe). Thus the M —16 was kept in the hands of troops for years after it should have been withdrawn and hard chromed.

The Second problem was the change of powder to a more dirty powder, through this seems more of an Army excuse than the reason (the real reason was the lack of hard chroming but that could not be fixed AND keep the M-16s in the hands of the Troops). The Powder was changed to inmprove the perforance of the M-16.

The Third was the cleaning kits supplied (i.e. NO CLEANING KITS). Cleaning kits were supplied afterwards but than WD-40 came into use. While liked by Unit Armories, WD-40 evaporated away after use so that the weapons all looked nice and clean for inspection. The problem was in the Field WD-40 also evaporated away and left the weapon without any lubricate. People were told NOT to use WD-40 but they were still doing it when I was in (The 1980s) for it kept the weapon nice and clean for inspection. Break free replaced WD-40 and was a tremendous improvement. I agree with the poster who said there are better lubricates out there for guns and such lubricates should be used over Break Free, but when I first was in, everyone sworn by WD-40 for it evaporated away and left the weapon clean for inspection.

[Spazito]

24. Thank you for that explanation! Very informative!

makes this story make eminent sense, given the environment the troops are in.

[alfredo]

7. They jammed due to the practice of taping an extra

magazine for quicker loading. The extra weight pulled the magazine down enough to cause a misalignment. I believe that has been fixed.

I used the M-14 during basic. when I got to my overseas base, the local police had M-16's and we had Korean war vintage M-1's. Nice rifles, but woefully out of date, with old ammo that misfired much too often.

I liked the M14. A nice weapon.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as15-e.htm

[RamboLiberal]

10. I also don't understand why military went to 9mm handguns

when many police depts here have found the 9mm does not always provide a one-stop shot. And I hear many troops are not fond of the Beretta.

Military should've stuck with the 45 or a 40. I can understand if they wanted to get away from the 1911 handgun - though they're damned fine weapons for most. But they could've gone with 40 or 45's with H&K's, Glocks, or Sigs who have a good rep for being nearly flawless in reliability with good stopping power.

[votein04]

13. war-lite. With tanks, planes, and Apachees, who needs guns?

?

[happyslug]

25. Several Reasons:

First, none of the M1911 in use by the US Army had been purchased since WWII. Most had been rebuilt about three times by the 1980s. They had to be replaced the question was by what?

Second, as part of NATO standardization it had been agreed that every NATO country would use 9mm Luger ammunition for its pistols. Just like everyone was to use 7.62x51 for Machine Guns and 5.56x45 for Rifles.

Third, the Italians and other Europeans had purchased several weapons systems from the US, our NATO allies said this could NOT be a one way street.

Fourth, the US Air Force wanted to replace their 38 Special Revolvers for their pilots and MPs. Both the pilots and MPs wanted Double Action ability so they could play quick draw. You can quick draw a M1911, but since it is NOT double action you have to manipulate the safety (if it was "cocked and locked" i.e. round in the chamber safety on) OR pull back the action (No round in the chamber, safety off). Neither is as quick as simply pulling the weapon and pulling the trigger as permitted by a double action weapon. The M1911 thus was NOT capable of Quick draw, something I think should be discouraged, for people have as much chance as shooting their foot as hitting the target given the training most military people have with pistols today (I carried a M1911 for two years and NEVER fired it). Please note I would exempt those people who train weekly on quick draw BUT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN IN THE MILITARY.

5. Tests have shown it takes less training to train someone in the use of a 9mm (or 38 Caliber) weapon than a .45 Caliber weapon. Thus 9mm was to be adopted (That Women liked the 9mm better than the .45 was also cited as a reason, but that has more to do with the Military not wanting to let people SHOOT than actual dislike. Women who have trained on the M1911 have done as well as most men PROVIDED the Women get the same training.

6. The Safety had to be usable by Ambidextrous Left or Right Handers (another addition to exclude the M1911).

Thus the US Military had to adopt the best European 9mm Double Action weapon possible (and in the test the M1911 was NOT permitted in, even as a Comparison weapon i.e. this is what being replaced, are these weapons better? The Army was afraid it would win and it was NOT double Action, European OR 9mm).

When the test were done, the Glocks were not yet out, Sigs were to expensive, The H&K did not quite meet the US Military Requirements (It has been years since I looked into this mess but I Believe the H&Ks of the early 1980s only had right hand safeties, and this did not meet the US Military requirements, the SIGs did as did the Glock's, but the Glock came out to late), thus the Beretta was adopted.

[Best_man23]

15. I've heard of Special Forces stocking AK-47s

For use in black ops, but not for everyday use.

This is not good.

[pw]

16. In Vietnam

it was a common story for troops to ditch their M-16s for kalashnikovs. Even if the M-16's initial problems have ultimately been fixed, it's not surprising that troops in the field would prefer to avoid even a whisper of uncertainty.

Let's face it -- a weapon that works when you do everything right isn't what you want when the chips are down. You want a weapon that works when you do almost everything wrong.

[StandWatie]

17. not smart..

No way in hell would I fire an AK over there, you are just asking for someone to hear the sound and direct artillery on you or something.

[Wonder_Cow]

19. Largest military in the world

and not enough rifles to go around, that can't be a good sign.

[gratuitous]

20. That's where I keep getting stuck

We're spending a billion dollars every stinkin' day and we can't keep our troops supplied with basic arms? Something is seriously rotten in Denmark.

[NekoChris]

21. Perhaps....

The government is sinking all of that military spending into building the next /METAL GEAR/.



..couldn't resist. ^_^

[demconfive]

26. There is a reason Special Forces use AK-47s

M-16s and AK-47s both have distinctive sounds. Special Forces working behind the lines use the enemy's weapons to hide who they are. If they used M-16s it would give away their location